I think that insights can be memories, because most of my whole experience of memories feels like a whole series of insights, bound up with sensory experiences. One of my earliest experiences is of being in a cot and one of my mother's friends trying to offer me a biscuit and me refusing. But this was not the significant part which I remember, but of a whole awareness, 'I am coming round again'. I don't think this was just the process of waking up, and even in childhood, I did wonder if it meant something else, and at age 12, I did connect this to the idea of reincarnation, even though that was inconsistent with the belief system which I had been taught.

Obviously, that is only my personal experience and it may be explained in other ways. We could also question to what extent are thoughts and insights different. I would imagine that it is probably just the quality of thought, with insight being more about moments of awareness, or even revelation on the personal level.

I wonder how the idea of memory in this thread relates to one you started a few days ago about memory prior to birth, because when I wrote my response to that one, I was wondering about the possibility of past lives in relation to the question you were posing there. Of course, it is an area of speculation and I am open to the idea of rebirths but don't hold onto it too rigidly.

I think that it is a mistake to divide care for self and for others into two separate categories, because they are interrelated. The ideas of the sociobiology of Edward O Wilson have influenced the way in which I see this. He sees us starting from the self and family, into an increasingly circle of others in our altruistic concern.

I would agree that clarity and determination of action, where necessary, are central in the outcome for compassion. This is based on reason. However, what I would add is that there has to be an emotional element to motivate the concern in the first place. For example, if someone sees a queue beside a food bank while shopping. In order to make the connection that these people needing to have food provided, there needs to be an emotional connection with the suffering. Similarly, say that someone has sat down for the evening, and a friend phones, saying how low in mood, it has to be the emotions which spur the person to, perhaps, spend an hour on the phone. I don't believe that it is simply based on the belief that it is the right thing to do.

I think it is a mistake if people get into the emotional side of compassion in a gushy sense. That would be mere sentimentality and probably not very helpful. But I do believe that there needs to be an emotional connection for compassion. I would argue that is probably what is lacking when people act in the complete opposite of compassion, such as in the case of cruelty towards another. It is the lack of empathy which leads the person to act in a hurtful or malicious way.

I do believe that there is a clear link between wisdom and compassion.

I also think agree that wisdom is about 'seeing clearly.'

So, we could say that compassion is a whole way of perceiving need correctly. The vision of needs is perhaps central and is one which goes beyond superficialities and identifies the root concerns, such as poverty, or emotional suffering. These form the basis for action but the perceptual vision is the foundation for all else. Perhaps, we could say that it is more than a feeling, and more a feeling toned evaluation of suffering and need.

I will look out for Popper. I will just be so glad if libraries(and bookshops)open again because that is how I usually find books. I do download books but it so much better being able to look at the books. The absence of libraries is the aspect of life with lockdown that I moan and groan about more than anything else, because a whole year without them almost has just been terrible.

I agree with you that it is important to 'work alongside the person and see that he is not that different from you'. I think that this is a far more understanding and effective way of exploring than one which is harsh and critical. We need to work with what knowledge and experience a person has to increase this rather than simply being judgemental about prejudice. Perhaps that is where simply trying to be politically correct falls short because it doesn't go deeper and work with increasing knowledge and enabling people to gain critical awareness for themselves.

I have only read a tiny amount of Popper, so I will try exploring him a bit further. Thanks for pointing me in his direction, because there are so many thinkers that it almost requires more than one lifetime to find the essential ones.

I am not sure about what you are asking, but I have been through a stage of reading esoteric literature while deconstructing the mainstream Christian views. I would say that encompasses the Gnostic and Celtic forms of Christianity, as well as movements such as alchemy, Rosicrucianism, the Theosophical tradition, the Kabbalah, the ideas of Jacob Boehme and many others.

My understanding is that these writers are intended for certain groups of people, often regarded as 'initiates'. There are many traditions and many writers and the ideas are subject to scrutiny. So, it is a big area, and I do think that you need to come up with a question as a means of focus.

I do think that compassion needs to lead to deeds of kindness. Even though I may have emphasised how it is about witnessing the pain of others, I would not wish to suggest that it ends there. In thinking about that, I have been focusing more upon emotional pain, and probably the reason I have done so is because my own background is mental health care.

However, I am not suggesting that compassion is just about that. It involves all dimensions of life, including responding to the physical pain of humans and animals, as well as poverty and starvation, homelessness and areas of need. I think that the problem is partly that there is a danger of telling people what they should do and that it needs to come from the heart. One complexity here is when people help others from a sense of guilt. Obviously, the fact of people being helped is still reached, but where I would suggest that the 'feeling' is important is that it is more genuine and should be on a deeper level.I do believe that empathetic understanding is central to all true compassion.

What is probably the most important factor is whether people question authority. I am thinking here about Milgram's famous psychology experiments on compliance. Would many people administer electric shocks if asked to do so by those in authority? If asked, with the question spelled outrightly, I am sure that many would say that they would not. However, it may be that 'the electric shocks' which they are asked to deliver are more subtle forms of inflicting pain and suffering to others. Based on my experience, I am not convinced that many people do question and look beyond the surface of policies and laws, or the status quo. I am sure that there are great variations but I think that whether people question authority is central. I don't know if education does tackle this because education is under the power of governance itself.

I watched the trailer and I do think that Weil's idea of being the witness of someone's pain is of supreme importance. This can also be seen as connected to the experience of personal pain. Christopher Gerber, in, 'The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion', stressed that ' Instead of greeting difficult emotions by fighting hard against them, we can bear witness to our own pain and respond with kindness and understanding.' I believe that this is about not beating ourselves up, or feeling guilty for our negative emotions but being mindful, observing the emotions rather than fighting them.

Perhaps when we need to witness the darkest emotions, including despair which Kierkergaard spoke of as, 'Sickness Unto Death,' which he defines: 'Despair at Not Being Conscious of Having a Self ( Despair Improperly So Called); in Despair at Not Willing to Be Oneself; in Despair at Willing to Be Oneself.' When I have been working in mental health care, with suicidal and despairing individuals, I found that connection to my own innermost feelings of despair was important. Of course, I did not explain this to them, but when I was engaging with them I believe that they were aware of genuine empathy, spoken or unspoken, and appreciated this, rather than only exploring the changes which could be made in life to make it better.

So, compassion may be about being able to enter into the spirit of another's suffering rather than just attempting to fix it. Of course, compassion involves elimination of cruelty and oppression in the world, but at a deeper level it is about being able to help others to bear the weight of suffering, through being willing to share and partake in the experience of another person. This would involve the whole spectrum of emotions, including the positive and negative ones.

Sometimes it does feel difficult to give another the full attention of listening, without attention when really it is probably easier than trying to come up with the right thing to say. It may be that we are so accustomed to speaking, almost like an automatic response and it involves slowing down, reflectively.

I have never read any writing by Simone Weii but I would like to.

I have just played the video, thanks. Strangely, only a couple of weeks ago I wrote a thread about how people are determined to be right and your video seems to be suggesting the importance of listening to others views.

I believe that listening to others is of supreme importance and it is central to compassionate because this involves being moved to step into the predicament of another. We may not be able to know what the person we encounter should do but listening may be the one thing which we can do. I would say that listening is an essential skill for living and it may be one that is undervalued within philosophy.

I would say that compassion needs to go beyond the idea of karma for it to be genuine. If someone is only responding and seeking to help another with a view to some future reward, in this life or another one, that is purely self reward. If responding to the suffering of another is done with a more generalised understanding of the way in which we are part of the cosmos, acting in line with the flow of cause and effect, it is slightly different because it is about wishing to contribute in the grand scheme of things which may have repercussions for us personally, it is a little different because it is not such a direct focus upon giving support to others with a view to positive gain. In other words, the principle that you reap what you sow is more in the background rather than in the front, for a specific personal reward.

I do believe that the tragic is part of the spur in the ability to enter into the spirit of compassion. The awareness of physical, emotional and mental pain is a key aspect. We could say that empathy needs to be based on a certain amount of experience of suffering of some kind. How can we be moved by the pain of another if we have no experience of pain. It would be empty rhetoric. But, of course it does not mean that we would necessarily disclose our experiences of suffering to the person who we meet in our empathy. That would only burden the other with our personal pain. But, experience of pain and tragedy is probably central to being able to reach out to another who is suffering.

I do believe that listening and understanding are central towards empathy and compassion. This is recognised in most schools of thought within counselling. Listening is so much more important than advice. I would say that we have so many people who like giving advice. Many people like to perceive what a person in a given situation should do and this is through inability to step into the world of the other. When we are listening to the person who is suffering, in the spirit of compassion, it may be about listening and not just trying to formulate specific answers. The person who is suffering may need the psychological space, to view and reflect. In being compassionate, we may need to stand back and enter into the suffering of the other to enable someone to find their own way forward.

I see your point about the 6 bind men, but, of course, you could say that this applies to many threads. Do all the other threads go beyond abstract ideas and feelings? When we start threads do we need clear goals? I create work for myself when I write threads but I do think that worthwhile discussion does take place.

But I like the poem and I do believe that creative writing takes us into places beyond philosophy. Also, perhaps philosophy is full of jumbled. When I tire of my new hobby of creating philosophy threads I would really like to write a novel, but, in the meantime, I do believe that the topic of compassion is as worthy of discussion as many others.

Absolutely, intellectualising can become a barrier and it can be a problem even in self talk. I don't think that cats lie awake in the middle of the night worrying about the meaning of life and they definitely don't get into philosophical arguments.

Of course, we don't really know what cats understand exactly. My mother used to talk to her cat, Plato, and she used to stand on the doorstep calling out his name at midnight, and he used to come running in. She used to say, 'He knows his name.'

But I wonder what cats make of loss or pain in the absence of language. For example, the cat is not able to have it communicated to her when her kittens are given away to others. Or, if a cat is ill, the vet is not able to give the cat an explanation, so the cat is left with unspoken truths in the absence of language.

I don't think that it is about privilege but about respecting individuality and difference. But I can see that this does involve debate. However, I will let Athena discuss further as she created the thread.

I can't say that I know that much about animal communities because I don't come into much contact with animals but the aspect of communication which is beyond language is non verbal communication.

In daily interaction, this is central. Of course, we don't use it when we write but in actual conversation it can say so much. The smile, the frown and even the pauses can say more than words in many ways. Even on the telephone, we can hear emotions, such as the raised voice of anger or laughter with humour. So, I would say that understanding languages is about being able to go beyond words into the realm of the non verbal.

I can see that your point about how compassion can be seen as a rather fuzzy, abstract concept. Of course, other ones such as justice, equality and even beauty are also abstract. Are they measurable at all? Perhaps none of these should be considered within philosophy because they are abstract. Of course, to some extent philosophy is dealing with the abstract because it is not just about facts.

I remember reading a book at some point by Paul Gilbert, 'The Compassionate Mind', which was concerned with psychological techniques for enabling compassion. Perhaps compassion fits more comfortably in the field of psychology and it is about a mindset rather than anything else.

However, when people use the term they often mean much more than this. In particular, in health care, there is a whole emphasis upon delivering compassionate care, and when I have worked in mental healthcare, I don't remember anyone actually querying what does compassion mean? I think that it is easier to point to lack of compassion than the presence of it. Here, I would say that if a person is admitted to hospital, say for an operation, they have some expectation that staff will treat them well and act in their best interest. However, if they did not feel that they were listened to it would be easy to say that the staff lacked compassion.

So, I can see why it is not a key focus because it is not measurable, but at the same time, compassion is a concept used in everyday life, which is more philosophical than anything else. I don't think that it should be relegated to religious thinking because it is about human living and not dependent upon religious or spiritual beliefs. Personally, I do see it as a way of seeing more than anything but it is one which has big implications for human behaviour towards others and animals. I do believe that the translation of compassion into practice is complex, but I would say that the same is true for other ideas, such as equality. It may be that others have a different understanding of compassion. My question of whether the idea has been thrown into the rubbish bin is related to the way in which I feel that compassion needs attention. But, this is bound up with the question of what is compassion? So, I am interested to know how others perceive the idea, and what others think that this entails.

My own feeling on this is that speaking of treating everyone as unique is about treating everyone as of equal worth, but not necessarily demanding that they are identical. You could say, for example, does that mean that at work everyone does the same tasks. I would say that it allows for some differences, according to ability and skills.

But it will be interesting to see if Athena thinks differently to this.

I would agree that we are becoming fragmented and perhaps this does create a problem for becoming compassionate. I know that the more broken apart I am feeling, the less able I am to feel compassion towards others. That is where healing oneself first comes in because that and compassion are like twins, or the yin and the yang, and both need working upon.

I would agree that compassion should extend to all sentient beings and not just human beings, but yes, it is harder to find the same connection with animals, although I know some people who prefer animals to people.

I think that your part of the problem is how we allow cruelty to animals. I would say that the same applies to people. Even if we feel compassion, do we act on it? Having created this thread, I was thinking of this in the night. I would say that I do 'feel' compassion but don't always know what to do about it. In particular, I would say that I feel compassion for the homeless but don't know what to do to help them.

So, the question is whether if compassion is just a feeling and nothing more is does it count for anything? I would say that it is a level of awareness but ideally it should translate into action, and this is where the difficulty lies. I would say that it is an approach to life in general, but I am not sure whether this is enough.

There is so much. Probably the book I would recommend is 'Modern Man in Search for a Soul' is a good introduction to his ideas.

Out of the list you give I think that the one that springs to my mind is passion, but I don't wish to generalise. I am not saying that compassion has been thrown away, and perhaps many people, including philosophers do value it. It could be that in some philosophy circles it is discussed, or perhaps it seen as a rather boring topic. I just feel that it should be on the agenda because there is so much suffering in the world. It just doesn't seem to appear much in current discussions I have been reading, so I am wondering why it is being left out of the picture.

It is hard work to gain awareness of the shadow because we all have a shadow side. He saw the work of the individual in coming to terms with all the negative aspects of the personality, and of course, he was working as a psychotherapist. I think it is worth you exploring his ideas if you are interested. You can probably find some further details about him on the internet, but most of my own reading has been his writings and many followers and critics. Jung's ideas, including the shadow are a big topic.

I am also aware that you wrote this thread shortly after I wrote mine on compassion and I do think that we are both looking at the same problem really. Also, you wrote about prejudice and if you scroll down the page of discussions you can see that I have a thread discussion going on prejudice, if you are interested.

You are quite right to point to the way in which compassion is central to the Gospels. I would say that both Jesus and the Buddha are ultimate examples of people who lived their lives based on compassion. Perhaps you are right to put the idea of compassion in the context of the Christian tradition, rather than in philosophy. But I do see it as independent of religious contexts because its importance is not based on any necessary belief in God or particular set of spiritual beliefs. I see it as a perspective which is central to life, for anyone, including atheists too, so that is why I frame it as a philosophy idea. When I say it has been thrown in the bin, I am probably referring to the way in which it is not given as much attention as it should in philosophy while it is an underlying basis of the emotional nature of moral values.

I can offer you the following quote from Judith Lief, in 'Radical Compassion',
'Compassion is based on empathy, being touched by the suffering of others. There are many levels of empathy Someone who is greatly compassionate is so touched by the suffering of others that it cuts him deeply.' In my own personal understanding empathy, involving feeling along with the person rather than looking down on them, is central. It involves being able to step inside the perspective of that person and connect with the experience. It could apply to the person who is homeless, abandoned by a lover, grieving after a death or a multitude of other different experiences.

I think that you are speaking about many forms of self destructiveness. I am concerned about the issues of prejudice and other injustices too. People call me an idealist, sometimes in criticism. But you are addressing the whole equation of collective injustice and I tend to see this in relation to what Jung describes as the shadow side of human nature, the repressed. I believe that this dark side is what is repressed and it forms as a powerful shadow in its own right.

I read an article in Feb/March 2021 'Philosophy Now' , which is relevant to the thread, so I will make a brief mention of it for anyone who is interested. It is called, 'The Limits of Argument', by Howard Darmstadter. He explores the nature of beliefs and changes to these and suggests that we hold on to the ones which we have acquired to protect us 'from a perpetual state of agitation and indecision.' He suggests that the main reason why we may change these beliefs is on the basis of our experiences, and he says, 'People do change their central beliefs, but often only as a result of a purely personal event, such as falling in love, or the death of a relative, or of a widespread catastrophe, like war or a plague.'

I think that what he is saying is so true and goes to the core of attachment to beliefs and the emotional basis of ideas. So, when people are insisting on being right it should not be viewed as mere arrogance in most instances, but more of the way in which our views are so bound up with our interpretiation and understanding of experiences.

It is the first time that I have come across you, so I expect you are new and I am glad to meet you. This thread is about people insisting upon being right and it is just the case that thoughts about the pandemic are intruding us everywhere, all the time. Of course, it is true that the politicians are intent upon being seen as right because they want our votes.

It is all haphazard. Perhaps the problem is that the leaders are not prepared to admit to making mistakes and insistent on appearing right in public opinion Of course, if the leaders admitted they did not know what they were doing people would lose trust in them. Perhaps the missing narrative is the way in which the government and scientists are so baffled, because this is evident if you read between the lines, because the goalposts keep changing.

I definitely believe that the whole approach to prejudice cannot be taught easily in schools or government programs and you are right to say that, 'It comes from within, if one is willing to honestly look at one's actions and reactions, and assess the why of them.' It is a matter of perspective and a whole way of seeing.

I definitely believe that something is missing from the narrative we are seeing about Covid_19. Apart from the difference in the way it was all being treated in China, the idea that it began as an accident, escaping in a Chinese laboratory is now believed to be wrong. Also, all these rumours of new variants.

I am not sure what to make of it all but I am inclined to believe that there are big political agendas behind the scenes. It could be about conflict between superpowers or it could be about agendas of the ruling elite, who own and manufacture the news. Perhaps even some of our leaders are not privy to this information and are like puppets. I would like to believe that it is just a virus that needs to be controlled but I do believe that some of the facts don't seem to add up properly.

Your thoughts are
'treat the person in front of you as they deserve to be treated based on that individual. See them for who they are and respond to that.'
If all people thought like that it would be great, but the question is how many people do think like this, really?

You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a job and feel very uncertain about my own future. So, I don't feel that I am writing from the perspective of advantage. I also think that many of the categories between working and middle class have broken down. Also, academic qualifications may not count for that much nowadays.

So, my whole discussion of prejudice must be seen in the context of a rapidly changing world and of changing values. We may be moving into a world in which yesterday's prejudices may be receding and a different set of new biases and inequalities surfacing. Therefore, my consideration, which was stressed in the opening of the thread, is not simply about seeing prejudices 'out there's in the world but about the whole way in which we think ,form and hold on to preconceived ideas about people. I see us being in this altogether, despite our often lonely struggles, and the only solution I see behind it all is a general need for compassion.

Generally, I agree with you and I was in health care until last May. Obviously measures were needed to curb the pandemic but I think that so much that has taken place has been moral panic of public opinion. I don't think that the scientists or government really know what they are doing and it does seem more guesswork about the vaccines. The whole problem is the new strains, but this is likely to go on and on with potentially hundreds of strains surfacing. My own thoughts on how long this is likely to last, is for many years to come. Would we remain in lockdown conditions? Who knows?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do wonder if there is a lot we are not being told behind the news headlines and coverage.

I am sure that ideas about lockdowns have been fueled by people who have thought this was right. However, no easy solution has been found to contain the virus, so everyone is still floundering. Even the effectiveness of the various vaccines is not certain at all, so it is a case of working no clear answers and struggling with the unknown.

Perhaps it might be worth you writing a fuller discussion of this and creating a thread on it in the main discussion area, as it is a central aspect of philosophy debate. Connecting phenomenology and the transcendent has a lot of scope.

I think that the majority of people are so engrossed in technology that perhaps they have stopped asking questions about it. It seems that many just see the information age as wonderful and don't make a distinction between it and technology. Of course, it is possible that your thread might have got a different response if the title had been different. It could be that the focus on impersonalness was part of the discussion, but the wrong starting point for some of those who opened the thread.

But don't forget that Descartes thought that the pineal gland was important. Of course, this is recognised as the third eye chakra within some Eastern views of thought.